chipmusic.org is an online community in respect and relation to chip music, art and its parallels.
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
ChipMusic.org / Forums / Posts by baudtack
The lsdj wiki is kind of awful IMHO.
I found this http://lsdsng.com but they require uploading to get anything and special formatting.
My thought was to have an HTML form that's set up like the lsdj screens so someone could just write out what they did. That way the site can then build images or HTML tables or csvs or PDFs for output.
I'm a programmer and the site itself would be fairly trivial to build. I'll try to build an alpha this weekend.
What do you think about turning this into a wiki so people can add their own?
Or better yet, a custom built site so it was easy to fill them out.
It could then make images or pdfs or whatever for download... Hrm... I could totally do that if there is any interest in such a thing.
Omg. You're a hero. This is my biggest problem with the lsdj community. So many awesome instruments but no centralized place to find them.
I was under the impression that the original question was simply about how he should name his tracks, not get into the finer points of copyright laws and all that
Reading back, I guess I hi-jacked this thread pretty hard. My bad. And I suppose my original question could be interpreted as me being a jerk. I wasn't trying to score points or embarrass anyone. I didn't understand the assertion that selling covers wasn't ok and was looking for clarification. I think I was bitten by the lack of textual tone.
I always login as root, which make me SuPeR USeR.
I like to live on the edge, as you can tell.
Oh god. I think I have to go lay down now. Your post makes me hurts.
oh yeah, google found this in seconds
http://edmhero.com/how-to-publish-your- … legal-way/
Yes. As I have repeatedly stated, I'm not confused about what you have to do to legally release covers or remixes. I don't understand the rational behind it. I fundamentally disagree with the way US copyright law works.
no, its just why you noticed some spite in my tone.
Uh. wow. Ok. I didn't get that at all but I guess I do now.
.and yes, you do keep going off topic, i haven't.
I don't see how I've gone off topic. I mean the thread isn't about this, but that's a different story I think. It started because someone made the claim that it was some how wrong to sell cover tracks, which is an assertion I objected to.
. others already laid out the differences in legality between remixes and covers in regards to who you are legally obligated to pay, i just was clarifying your confusion on covers vs remixes with helpful video links and using examples where people make money entirely off performing the works of others (alive or dead) which are the situations more likely to result in legal action beyond ceas & desist.. a cover or two in a set here and there usually wouldnt draw attention unless it blew up... from what i remember, that daft punk "da chip" chip cover album had to get pulled after a cease & desist
I know the what the law says. I just disagree that that is what it should say. This is an area where I think there is a huge gap between what is Right and Good (tm) and what the law says. I'm trying to find a rational for why people think that the law should work the way that it does and apparently making people really mad. So maybe this should be the end of the thread since we don't seem to be getting anywhere.
TL;DR for the future: I'm apparently wrong and an idiot but no one can give me any clear guide as to what is OK and what isn't. Probably because there isn't one.
videos not loading would be on your end.. is youtube blocked for some reason?
Don't thinks so. Chrome is just being a jerk. I'll take another look later.
seriously though, your opinions on how it should be in no way effect the reality of the laws in place or mean anyone should feel bad if you decide to go around the law and get a cease & desist.
Maybe I'm not being clear as several people have made a similar comment but, I never said they did. I'm not talking about what is legal and what isn't. I'm talking about how I think it should work. I'm fully aware that it doesn't work in the way I'm describing.
just watch those videos i posted and you should get what constitutes a cover (yes, even if you add accordion and turn a punk song into polka) and what is a remix, and what isn't really anything resembling the original work in final content, even if it uses parts of the recording..
I would but they don't seem to be loading for me. Not sure if that's an issue on my end or not.
hell half of hip hop and breakcore stuff borrows drum hits from the same 4 bar drum break, but rechops/splces/cuts/edits the shit out of the amen to make something validly considered as new unique material and not really a copyright violation
Right. I'm trying to figure out an exact definition of where people think the line is. So far the answer seems to be that it's like pornography. You know it when you see it. That's not satisfying to me. When it comes to issues of whether or not I'll get sued for my super awesome Daft Punk cover album, I want there to a clear line of demarcation. And there isn't one. So that's part of my complaint about the way things work.
theyre just boring and usually the ones doing the cover bands/tributes from my experience
and when performing a play, if its still under copyright, they do have to pay the playwriter.. otherwise playwriters couldn't really make a living at all
Boring shouldn't be a factor on if they should be allowed to do what they do without monetary compensation.
It's not the same as a play though. But to take an example. I know Rain do a "Coming to America" show where they have the same sets and staging etc as the Beatles did for their first American tour. Should they have to pay the set designers and whoever designed their costumes?
I think we're starting to veer away from the topic of music and copyright here though and it's part of a broader discussion about copyright in general.
Ok, So to pull a chiptune example, what about
http://chipmusic.org/monotron/music/domino-lsdj-cover
Is that OK or should monotron have to pay whoever owns the copyright to that song? Does it count as a remix? Why isn't instrumentation enough to qualify it as different?
people go see cover bands too, though, not just tributes to dead artists.. lots of middle aged dudes playing $400+ a night gigs with 0 original songs... seems fair they kick a little of that to van halen or whoever else their shitty band covers
Done well a cover band is a performance piece, like a play. I don't see anything wrong with that. Should they give a kick back to the original artist? Maybe. But I don't see why they should be forced to give a residual to the copyright holder in perpetuity.
You seem to have a complaint against middle aged dudes with zero original songs. If people are willing to pay to see them, I don't see what the issue is. They aren't making a contribution to music in the grand scheme of things, but so what?
are you completely unfamiliar with the existence of tribute bands? usually uncreative middle aged guys with good dayjobs and a ton of money to buy the exact gear their favorite band used and even go as far as dressing like them, playing the songs note for note? its kind of (sadly) a big industry actually... beatles and elvis tribute bands especially
You're right. My bad. I still don't have a problem with this. Particularly in this context in a capitalist society, because you're not competing with the original band. No one says "Well I could go see that Beatles Reunion Tour... or I could go see Rain for half the price. Guess I'll do that." It's not the same experience at all. (and yes I know two of The Beatles are dead. It's just an example.)
>Socialist
>wants to be king of the earth
I'm not going to say that I think you're a bit of an idiot, but...
Thanks. Glad we can have a rational discussion about it without resorting to name calling. King of the earth was a joke.
Yes, a cover is playing someone else's music the way they did, it may be on different instruments, but by definition, you aren't adding very much to it, so it isn't a remix.
Now you're arguing that different instrumentation isn't adding anything to a song. I don't even know what to say to that. What constitutes it being different enough? What if I change one verse? One line? One word? One phrase? One note? Where do you draw the line? It's clear to me that you think somewhere there is a line over which something would count as a remix and then be OK.
I mean, I'm not trying to attack your ideals, I have a feeling that we have pretty similar ones, if anything we should both be saying "No, you can't make money off of my music because all music should be free" but idk, if I'm living under a system that's broken, I might as well take advantage of it. I wouldn't be happy putting my music out for free for the world to enjoy, while someone else restricts the access of a version of it that that was originally free.
I don't think people shouldn't take advantage of a system that has rules in place that I don't think should be there. That wouldn't be rational to expect everyone to do that. An analog to what you're talking about exists in the software world it's called a copyleft licence, where the rules of copyright law are used to keep someone from taking Free software and making changes to it and selling it as proprietary rather than re-release those changes back into the community. That would be the ideal situation in music as well, imho.
You aren't building on it if you're covering it, you seem to be saying that because someone releases a song, they should be able to make money off of other people using their work. I put out all of my stuff under a license that allows people to build on it, but non-commercially. I am 100% happy with people remixing or re-interpreting my work in their own way. What I am not cool with is people using something that was originally mine in any form for their own financial gain. Artists are under no obligation to allow others to let other people play their work, let alone play it and make money out of doing so. I like that the chipscene as a whole is pretty open about sharing stuff, .lsdsng songs, or .ftms or whatever, but you don't have bands give out chord sheets with their music, if you're luck then you get lyrics.
By the same token would you be fine with what qb said, if you were to put effort into a song, only to have someone remix it, and make millions of X currency off of something that is mostly your own work? I would feel cheated. If someone was going to do that, I'd like a cut of it as well, not just because I need money, but because something that I have put time and effort into creating is making money, therefor I should be aloud a percentage of the money for my work.You're telling me you wouldn't be narked even a little if you had a timbaland pulled on you?
I guess by cover you mean, I'm playing exactly the same way you did. Perfectly. Which of course can happen in electronic music but basically no where else. That's kind of a weird situation. It might be kind of a dick move but I don't think there should be legal repercussions for being a jerk.
If someone remixed something I released, and it blew up and they made millions, whether or not I'd be upset isn't the question. The question is should I have legal protection from that happening and I'd say no. I'm willing to sacrifice those possible rights for what I see as the greater good of having free access to work with music. I think this is just a fundamental philosophical difference between us. If you can't tell by now I'm a bit of a socialist anyway.
It's all a moot point until I'm crowned king of the earth.
What exactly do you mean by "vibrations in the air"?
Sound. It's just the air vibrating in a particular pattern and pushing on your ear drum.
ChipMusic.org / Forums / Posts by baudtack
